[86714] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: mech
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark J. Reed)
Wed Oct 28 19:30:26 2009
In-Reply-To: <355A0111-0E8D-413C-875B-6F32DF2021B3@alcaco.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:28:40 -0400
From: "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Agreed. -vaD is specifically "for the benefit of". Plenty of human
languages have untelated ways of expressing these senses of "for", so
it's awfully presumptuous to think Klingon might mix and match the way
English does. (worth noting that -meH can also be glossed as "for" in
some cases, to show the other direction in which "for" and -vaD don't
completely line up.)
-marqoS
On Wednesday, October 28, 2009, ghunchu'wI' <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2009, at 3:17 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:
>
>> Do we have any canon on how to use mech?
>> I'm trying to say "I want to trade my X for your Y". Is it as
>> simple as:
>>
>> DaqtaghlIjvaD betleHwIj vImech vIneH
>
> I wouldn't expect this use of English "for" to match the Klingon {-vaD}.
> Without specific official guidance, I'd probably consider the things
> being traded as a plural object and say it like this:
>
> DaqtaghlIj betleHwIj je DImech vIneH.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
>
>
--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@gmail.com>
